Not sure how often theymos checks Meta but you're probably better off at least pinging him via PM.
For some reason, I was under the impression that he read every thread in meta. Maybe it was BadBear that said that. Anyway, I sent him a PM. 
Topic: Deleting 5 year old posts (Read 899 times)
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2717
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Some idiot is going on an unnecessary reporting spree. It's mostly pointless reporting the majority of old posts but if someone reports something then some mod will likely handle it. I don't think we should de-facto prohibit people from reporting all old posts but reporting low-quality posts from 5 years ago isn't really needed.
Mr Hilarious has been feuding with Mr Mprep for many many years about his posts been deleted.
Can we get the option of seeing our reports that get marked as bad? I got a bad report yesterday for the first time in a while and I have no idea what it was for. I understand they're kept on the system for two weeks so I think it'd be beneficial if we could see the ones that have been rejected. This way at least people can learn from their mistakes and get a general idea of what should and shouldn't be reported.
I handled a lot of your reports recently. Guess I'm on a similar time line .I marked one as bad since you reported a thread in a Beginners section that actually fit there. That's it, I think. So hilariousandco has known for at least six years that mprep shows no mercy when deleting posts.
Feuding with mprep? That's news to me. Marking one of my reports as bad doesn't mean he's heavyhanded. I have no idea what the post was so it could have been a bad report for all I know, or just a difference of opinion.
How many votes does it take to delete a reported post?
It doesn't matter. Sometimes a post is only reported once, and other times it could be reported by numerous people. How many times someone reports it is irrelevant to whether it gets handled or not but if the same report is popping up in the queue it will probably stand out more.
How many votes does it take to delete a reported post?
Two thirds provided the quorum is reached in theymos' living room every 5th Sunday of a month. /s
How many votes does it take to delete a reported post? Does anyone check if the admin says "yes" to one report, but "no" to another report (even when they are in essence the same type of report???) and how does mod malevolent know who made report? and how many reports are not looked at? (as in they say "yes" to some people's posts, but turn blind eyes on other reports??)
There are thousands or tens of thousands of reports throughout the month, Admins and Global mods see all reports, other mods see reports about posts from sections they moderate. Mods can see who made the report. At least 2% of reports are unhandled.
Some idiot is going on an unnecessary reporting spree. It's mostly pointless reporting the majority of old posts but if someone reports something then some mod will likely handle it. I don't think we should de-facto prohibit people from reporting all old posts but reporting low-quality posts from 5 years ago isn't really needed.
Mr Hilarious has been feuding with Mr Mprep for many many years about his posts been deleted.
Can we get the option of seeing our reports that get marked as bad? I got a bad report yesterday for the first time in a while and I have no idea what it was for. I understand they're kept on the system for two weeks so I think it'd be beneficial if we could see the ones that have been rejected. This way at least people can learn from their mistakes and get a general idea of what should and shouldn't be reported.
I handled a lot of your reports recently. Guess I'm on a similar time line .I marked one as bad since you reported a thread in a Beginners section that actually fit there. That's it, I think. So hilariousandco has known for at least six years that mprep shows no mercy when deleting posts.
I would guess the moderators are reaching for violations years back, because real time violations are decreasing.
Nah, there are actually multiple people reporting some very old posts.
How many votes does it take to delete a reported post? Does anyone check if the admin says "yes" to one report, but "no" to another report (even when they are in essence the same type of report???) and how does mod malevolent know who made report? and how many reports are not looked at? (as in they say "yes" to some people's posts, but turn blind eyes on other reports??)
I would guess the moderators are reaching for violations years back, because real time violations are decreasing.
Nah, there are actually multiple people reporting some very old posts.
We don't even know what information is presented to a moderator before they act on a request. Maybe they don't know the post date.
We get links to posts/threads so we see post dates like everyone else.
@QS, sorry to interrupt here but I've got a question.
While you are stuck in the old-posts-deletion vortex and are interested to know why the posts got deleted by mods, I'd like to ask something completely opposite. Why can't I delete my 5-6 (even higher) years old thread(s) myself that I have created then? Is it compulsory to keep the threads even when there are options to delete our own posts in those threads? Is it also just limited to a few sections of the forum or all the boards are included?
While you are stuck in the old-posts-deletion vortex and are interested to know why the posts got deleted by mods, I'd like to ask something completely opposite. Why can't I delete my 5-6 (even higher) years old thread(s) myself that I have created then? Is it compulsory to keep the threads even when there are options to delete our own posts in those threads? Is it also just limited to a few sections of the forum or all the boards are included?
If the threads have only your posts, delete them, edit out the OP, and report the threads so a mod can delete them. If the threads aren't self-moderated and have other peoples' on-topic replies that's more between you and them, you can ask them if they'd delete their own posts but it's up to them.
On this occasion fault is with the weasel snitchy reporter not the mod. This will be either moronbozo or suchmoron or one of the gang that does not fully appreciate the new lauda quicksellout7 69er taking place.
Oh, that's why mprep merged few of my old posts, because I snitched myself 
Like I have said several times before, the moderators really need some kind of feedback mechanism to highlight excessive reports coming from or targeting a single user.
You are a troll, which means you are asking for a VIP card anytime you post garbage and people report.
Much easier to hide the author name when a post is reported. That would eliminate your imaginary conspiracy.
@QS, sorry to interrupt here but I've got a question.
While you are stuck in the old-posts-deletion vortex and are interested to know why the posts got deleted by mods, I'd like to ask something completely opposite. Why can't I delete my 5-6 (even higher) years old thread(s) myself that I have created then? Is it compulsory to keep the threads even when there are options to delete our own posts in those threads? Is it also just limited to a few sections of the forum or all the boards are included?
While you are stuck in the old-posts-deletion vortex and are interested to know why the posts got deleted by mods, I'd like to ask something completely opposite. Why can't I delete my 5-6 (even higher) years old thread(s) myself that I have created then? Is it compulsory to keep the threads even when there are options to delete our own posts in those threads? Is it also just limited to a few sections of the forum or all the boards are included?
-quote snip in reference to the earliest rule mention-
To my knowledge, this is the first public mention of the rule in question, posted in April 2016.
Again, I might be mistaken but IIRC the rules has been in effect for much longer before theymos chimed in publicly about them. The quote in question even mentions that the he warned the user in the past for this violation. There's a reason why I took up compiling all the written and unwritten rules into a single source after all.To my knowledge, this is the first public mention of the rule in question, posted in April 2016.
-quote snip in reference to merging the same user's posts in between now deleted posts-
I don't think this is in line with the above rule, and would also violate the forum stance against ex-post-facto rules, as someone has no way of knowing if someone else's post would be deleted when they make a post, so they have no way of knowing they would need to edit their post. In other words, someone has no way of knowing they need to follow a certain rule when they make a post. The logic behind the rule is that multi-posting unfairly bumps threads, and spams watch lists, neither of which apply in a situation in which someone else has replied to a thread.
Hence why AFAIK no one was punished (banned or warned) for having lots such posts merged. Either way, if I'm not mistaken, only admins can see deleted posts so it'd be difficult to consistently check whether there used to be a post or two in between.I don't think this is in line with the above rule, and would also violate the forum stance against ex-post-facto rules, as someone has no way of knowing if someone else's post would be deleted when they make a post, so they have no way of knowing they would need to edit their post. In other words, someone has no way of knowing they need to follow a certain rule when they make a post. The logic behind the rule is that multi-posting unfairly bumps threads, and spams watch lists, neither of which apply in a situation in which someone else has replied to a thread.
To my knowledge, I was not punished for having my posts removed, other than my receiving 60+ PMs about deleted posts. As far as I am aware, I was not banned for these posts. The majority of the posts were deleted May 2, in two batches, with seconds being in-between the time I had posts deleted in each batch, which implies automation was used in responding to the reports against me. I was not aware of my posts being deleted for over 3 days, so in theory, I could have been banned for 3 days without my knowledge, however if this was the case, it was not followed. I have serious doubts that I will be banned for this, or at all.
Yeah, no ban was issued for the merged posts, at least by me.-quote snip in reference to appealing the posts deletions / merging-
This is the point of my creating this thread.
Not sure how often theymos checks Meta but you're probably better off at least pinging him via PM. This is the point of my creating this thread.
We don't even know what information is presented to a moderator before they act on a request. Maybe they don't know the post date.
I'm pretty sure a link to the post is available with the report, and if the report claims the user made several posts in a row, the post has to be checked to confirm that. 
Some idiot is going on an unnecessary reporting spree. It's mostly pointless reporting the majority of old posts but if someone reports something then some mod will likely handle it. I don't think we should de-facto prohibit people from reporting all old posts but reporting low-quality posts from 5 years ago isn't really needed.
Like I have said several times before, the moderators really need some kind of feedback mechanism to highlight excessive reports coming from or targeting a single user. "Just enforcing the rules" has been a favorite little game of people targeting those who they would rather were not able to speak at all. Furthermore, the more mods respond to these abuses of the reporting system, the more they incentivize these users to do so.
I would guess the moderators are reaching for violations years back, because real time violations are decreasing.
Per mprep above, someone reported the 5 year old posts (recently)We don't even know what information is presented to a moderator before they act on a request. Maybe they don't know the post date.
I would guess the moderators are reaching for violations years back, because real time violations are decreasing.
Per mprep above, someone reported the 5 year old posts (recently) Today I found over 60 posts in my inbox that were all messages saying I had posts deleted.
It appears that the moderator was incorrectly applying the rule “double posting” isn’t allowed.
The majority (if not all) the posts in question were from 2015, which is before the rule was implemented and I believe the forum generally has a policy against ex-post-facto laws/rules/regulations. Theymos has also said that occasionally posting successive posts when the posts are substantial and the person is not participating in a paid sig campaign is allowed. I am not currently participating in a paid sig deal and don’t believe I was when most of the posts in question were posted.
Some of the posts were made in threads such as this one, in which the person who I was responding to had deleted their posts and as such the posts the posts did not violate the rule in question, even if applied retroactively as the rule is posting multiple posts in a row are not allowed, and multiple posts were not posted in a row. This is clear because the posts were quoting other posts that were removed.
It appears that someone was implementing a script that uses flawed logic. Even without access to all deleted posts, you could easily see the posts were not posted in violation of the rule.
Also, most of the threads in question are very old and are not active (they are 5 years old). I really don’t see a good reason to be going back this far to remove posts you believe violate this rule (using flawed logic).
It appears that the moderator was incorrectly applying the rule “double posting” isn’t allowed.
The majority (if not all) the posts in question were from 2015, which is before the rule was implemented and I believe the forum generally has a policy against ex-post-facto laws/rules/regulations. Theymos has also said that occasionally posting successive posts when the posts are substantial and the person is not participating in a paid sig campaign is allowed. I am not currently participating in a paid sig deal and don’t believe I was when most of the posts in question were posted.
Some of the posts were made in threads such as this one, in which the person who I was responding to had deleted their posts and as such the posts the posts did not violate the rule in question, even if applied retroactively as the rule is posting multiple posts in a row are not allowed, and multiple posts were not posted in a row. This is clear because the posts were quoting other posts that were removed.
It appears that someone was implementing a script that uses flawed logic. Even without access to all deleted posts, you could easily see the posts were not posted in violation of the rule.
Also, most of the threads in question are very old and are not active (they are 5 years old). I really don’t see a good reason to be going back this far to remove posts you believe violate this rule (using flawed logic).
I would guess the moderators are reaching for violations years back, because real time violations are decreasing.
Thank you for responding. Yes, it was mprep that deleted my posts, based on who edited those that I looked at, however I did not want to call you out by name to avoid creating unnecessary drama. I have no reason to believe this was malicious on your part, or on the part of any other moderator.
To my knowledge, this is the first public mention of the rule in question, posted in April 2016.
I don't think this is in line with the above rule, and would also violate the forum stance against ex-post-facto rules, as someone has no way of knowing if someone else's post would be deleted when they make a post, so they have no way of knowing they would need to edit their post. In other words, someone has no way of knowing they need to follow a certain rule when they make a post. The logic behind the rule is that multi-posting unfairly bumps threads, and spams watch lists, neither of which apply in a situation in which someone else has replied to a thread.
The majority (if not all) the posts in question were from 2015, which is before the rule was implemented...
AFAIK the rule has been in effect for much longer than it was included in the "unofficial list of rules" thread. There's a reason why there's "unofficial" in its name (and why it was made created a few years after the forum was founded) - it's my own personal effort of compiling as many rules in as compact of a format as possible.IIRC I did warn you about this in the past...
Having a few consecutive posts every now and then when you don't have a paid sig isn't a big deal, but PG/GG does it habitually. The issue with this is that it unfairly bumps topics (like bumping a topic more than once per 24 hours) and it spams "watchlist", "show unrelad posts since last visit", etc.
I would say however that I do not agree with this rule, especially when there is no paid signature involved. Posting multiple times does have clear benefits as it makes it very clear that you are making multiple points in relation to a particular topic. Making one post and then a subsequent post immediately after helps empanthesize the second post and would be beneficial to someone making a series of points concluded by a strong/important point.
Having a few consecutive posts every now and then when you don't have a paid sig isn't a big deal, but PG/GG does it habitually. The issue with this is that it unfairly bumps topics (like bumping a topic more than once per 24 hours) and it spams "watchlist", "show unrelad posts since last visit", etc.
Some of the posts were made in threads such as this one, in which the person who I was responding to had deleted their posts and as such the posts the posts did not violate the rule in question, even if applied retroactively as the rule is posting multiple posts in a row are not allowed, and multiple posts were not posted in a row. This is clear because the posts were quoting other posts that were removed.
If posts become consecutive due to deletion of another user's posts, in practice they're usually merged as well.Also, most of the threads in question are very old and are not active (they are 5 years old). I really don’t see a good reason to be going back this far to remove posts you believe violate this rule (using flawed logic).
Had no one reported your posts, I'd agree. I didn't dig those topics and posts up myself, someone reported them.@Quickseller and @RussiaCoinDotInfo, if you believe I was wrong in merging your old posts (and / or deleting old bumps), feel free to appeal my decision to theymos. I am far from infallible and maybe your interpretation is right and mine is wrong. If theymos decides to reverse my decision, I'll gladly adjust how I handle reports on old consecutive posts and old undeleted bumps.
This is the point of my creating this thread. The deleted posts metric has long since been weaponized.
To my knowledge, I was not punished for having my posts removed, other than my receiving 60+ PMs about deleted posts. As far as I am aware, I was not banned for these posts. The majority of the posts were deleted May 2, in two batches, with seconds being in-between the time I had posts deleted in each batch, which implies automation was used in responding to the reports against me. I was not aware of my posts being deleted for over 3 days, so in theory, I could have been banned for 3 days without my knowledge, however if this was the case, it was not followed. I have serious doubts that I will be banned for this, or at all. I always try to maintain my reports to within the last 3 to 4 months, only stepping over the bounds if the user has particularly egregious post quality or if there is something critical to check out. I really don't see the point of people reporting posts older than that: notwithstanding exceptional cases, you can anticipate that those posts would be invariably buried beneath the subsequent lackadaisical replies or beneath the newer, spammier threads in the board.
If some mongrel really has a vendetta against QS, there are certainly more productive ways to lash out at them than doing these sneaky reports if that's the intention.
I have my suspicious as to who is behind the reports, although I don't want to name names right now. I would understand more if the threads were active, and there were old bumps, but neither applies. As mentioned above, it is possible someone is just trying to pad their reporting stats. Or maybe someone is just trying to create trouble.... If some mongrel really has a vendetta against QS, there are certainly more productive ways to lash out at them than doing these sneaky reports if that's the intention.
The deleted posts metric has long since been weaponized.
Theymos should always do an in depth investigation before applying blanket rules and actions to this gamed nonsense.
I have seen this before. A member upsets another and they will try to weaponized the " deleted posts / certain timeframe " metric
Everything on this forum that can be gamed and manipulated will be gamed and manipulated.
The moderators in most cases are just reacting to reports. However 100% there has been some undeniably and biased moderation here in meta previously.
This seems to have improved hugely recently.specifically in meta.
I would recommend the forum only accepts reports on posts older than 2 yrs old if it is serious or scammy. If you get reports marked bad on posts older than 2yrs old in future because they are not serious then you get a warning.
These petty snitchers for personal retribution need to be taken care of. Wasting valuable mod time paid for from board resources for their petty personal gripes.
It is best to document all of your deleted posts that are clearly incorrectly deleted.
In this case they seem valid deletes as per the rules but still these kinds of years old posts should be kept apart from any consideration for a ban based on deleted posts / specific time frame rule theymos has.
On this occasion fault is with the weasel snitchy reporter not the mod. This will be either moronbozo or suchmoron or one of the gang that does not fully appreciate the new lauda quicksellout7 69er taking place.
Without seeing the posts it is impossible to know if any useful information was lost.
Theymos should always do an in depth investigation before applying blanket rules and actions to this gamed nonsense.
I have seen this before. A member upsets another and they will try to weaponized the " deleted posts / certain timeframe " metric
Everything on this forum that can be gamed and manipulated will be gamed and manipulated.
The moderators in most cases are just reacting to reports. However 100% there has been some undeniably and biased moderation here in meta previously.
This seems to have improved hugely recently.specifically in meta.
I would recommend the forum only accepts reports on posts older than 2 yrs old if it is serious or scammy. If you get reports marked bad on posts older than 2yrs old in future because they are not serious then you get a warning.
These petty snitchers for personal retribution need to be taken care of. Wasting valuable mod time paid for from board resources for their petty personal gripes.
It is best to document all of your deleted posts that are clearly incorrectly deleted.
In this case they seem valid deletes as per the rules but still these kinds of years old posts should be kept apart from any consideration for a ban based on deleted posts / specific time frame rule theymos has.
On this occasion fault is with the weasel snitchy reporter not the mod. This will be either moronbozo or suchmoron or one of the gang that does not fully appreciate the new lauda quicksellout7 69er taking place.
Without seeing the posts it is impossible to know if any useful information was lost.
I always try to maintain my reports to within the last 3 to 4 months, only stepping over the bounds if the user has particularly egregious post quality or if there is something critical to check out. I really don't see the point of people reporting posts older than that: notwithstanding exceptional cases, you can anticipate that those posts would be invariably buried beneath the subsequent lackadaisical replies or beneath the newer, spammier threads in the board.
If some mongrel really has a vendetta against QS, there are certainly more productive ways to lash out at them than doing these sneaky reports if that's the intention.
If some mongrel really has a vendetta against QS, there are certainly more productive ways to lash out at them than doing these sneaky reports if that's the intention.
global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2717
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
Some idiot is going on an unnecessary reporting spree. It's mostly pointless reporting the majority of old posts but if someone reports something then some mod will likely handle it. I don't think we should de-facto prohibit people from reporting all old posts but reporting low-quality posts from 5 years ago isn't really needed.
The majority (if not all) the posts in question were from 2015, which is before the rule was implemented...
AFAIK the rule has been in effect for much longer than it was included in the "unofficial list of rules" thread. There's a reason why there's "unofficial" in its name (and why it was made created a few years after the forum was founded) - it's my own personal effort of compiling as many rules in as compact of a format as possible....and I believe the forum generally has a policy against ex-post-facto laws/rules/regulations. Theymos has also said that occasionally posting successive posts when the posts are substantial and the person is not participating in a paid sig campaign is allowed. I am not currently participating in a paid sig deal and don’t believe I was when most of the posts in question were posted.
Fair point though in the wide majority of cases I've seen, consecutive posts were either merged or outright deleted.Some of the posts were made in threads such as this one, in which the person who I was responding to had deleted their posts and as such the posts the posts did not violate the rule in question, even if applied retroactively as the rule is posting multiple posts in a row are not allowed, and multiple posts were not posted in a row. This is clear because the posts were quoting other posts that were removed.
If posts become consecutive due to deletion of another user's posts, in practice they're usually merged as well.It appears that someone was implementing a script that uses flawed logic. Even without access to all deleted posts, you could easily see the posts were not posted in violation of the rule.
It isn't in violation according to your interpretation of the rules. It was according to mine (see rule 23 in https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657), which I base on what I've observed other moderators do when encountering consecutive posts or old bumps over the years.Also, most of the threads in question are very old and are not active (they are 5 years old). I really don’t see a good reason to be going back this far to remove posts you believe violate this rule (using flawed logic).
Had no one reported your posts, I'd agree. I didn't dig those topics and posts up myself, someone reported them.A few short weeks ago humble #RussiaCoin has also fallen foul of mprp's heavy hand with more than 10% of all of our post having been deleted. The Russiacoin thread was started June 7 2015 and 43 of our posts in our own thread having been deleted by mprp all the way back to 2015 in the one thread. Some but not all of our posts have been rolled into one post here and there, but others were deleted without clear reason. When I tried to ask mr.mprp to explain why he didn't even issue warning he said its not his job to warn, just delete posts for being multiple posts. There have been some other threads in the weeks that followed https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54323822 is one about many people's posts being deleted without warning.
Most of what I've said about Quickseller's concerns applies to your case as well. The deleted posts were probably bumps (or "update"-like bump posts that were either low value or duplicating content) or part of a row of consecutive posts where the content was duplicated or low value. When it comes to warnings about consecutive posts or old bumps, those are just merged or deleted - warnings are for ongoing behavior, not past infractions. If every mod had to warn the user to clean up himself, moderation would screech to a standstill.I can not recall just now who said it, but someone in one of the other posts said something about us lower down the ranks are having their posts deleted to prevent them from gaining ranks. I had 359 posts, now I only have 316 - a few posts were weeks apart, so it now looks like there was no activity in the #RussiaCoin thread for many months which is a blow to the stomach since our coins were lost in both Cryptopia and Tradesatoshi (run by the same people FYI)
If your "rank" was gained through posts that break the forum's rules, you don't deserve that rank.The mods in the other threads will tell you they all have different opinions about what does and does not get deleted.
IIRC theymos doesn't believe in definitive rule lists so a lot of moderation decisions are left to moderators with different interpretations of forum policy.<...>
Frankly, pretty much any report on posts that are 5 years old should be marked as bad. There is no reason why action should be taken on posts this old in nearly all cases. If you are going back this far to report posts, you are either trying to create trouble or are trying to pad your stats.
I don't mark reports as bad unless, according to my interpretation of the rules, the posts in question doesn't require any action since it doesn't break any forum rule that I can perceive with the information provided in the report.Frankly, pretty much any report on posts that are 5 years old should be marked as bad. There is no reason why action should be taken on posts this old in nearly all cases. If you are going back this far to report posts, you are either trying to create trouble or are trying to pad your stats.
@Quickseller and @RussiaCoinDotInfo, if you believe I was wrong in merging your old posts (and / or deleting old bumps), feel free to appeal my decision to theymos. I am far from infallible and maybe your interpretation is right and mine is wrong. If theymos decides to reverse my decision, I'll gladly adjust how I handle reports on old consecutive posts and old undeleted bumps.
Today I found over 60 posts in my inbox that were all messages saying I had posts deleted.
It appears that the moderator was incorrectly applying the rule “double posting” isn’t allowed.
The majority (if not all) the posts in question were from 2015, which is before the rule was implemented and I believe the forum generally has a policy against ex-post-facto laws/rules/regulations. Theymos has also said that occasionally posting successive posts when the posts are substantial and the person is not participating in a paid sig campaign is allowed. I am not currently participating in a paid sig deal and don’t believe I was when most of the posts in question were posted.
Some of the posts were made in threads such as this one, in which the person who I was responding to had deleted their posts and as such the posts the posts did not violate the rule in question, even if applied retroactively as the rule is posting multiple posts in a row are not allowed, and multiple posts were not posted in a row. This is clear because the posts were quoting other posts that were removed.
It appears that someone was implementing a script that uses flawed logic. Even without access to all deleted posts, you could easily see the posts were not posted in violation of the rule.
Also, most of the threads in question are very old and are not active (they are 5 years old). I really don’t see a good reason to be going back this far to remove posts you believe violate this rule (using flawed logic).
It appears that the moderator was incorrectly applying the rule “double posting” isn’t allowed.
The majority (if not all) the posts in question were from 2015, which is before the rule was implemented and I believe the forum generally has a policy against ex-post-facto laws/rules/regulations. Theymos has also said that occasionally posting successive posts when the posts are substantial and the person is not participating in a paid sig campaign is allowed. I am not currently participating in a paid sig deal and don’t believe I was when most of the posts in question were posted.
Some of the posts were made in threads such as this one, in which the person who I was responding to had deleted their posts and as such the posts the posts did not violate the rule in question, even if applied retroactively as the rule is posting multiple posts in a row are not allowed, and multiple posts were not posted in a row. This is clear because the posts were quoting other posts that were removed.
It appears that someone was implementing a script that uses flawed logic. Even without access to all deleted posts, you could easily see the posts were not posted in violation of the rule.
Also, most of the threads in question are very old and are not active (they are 5 years old). I really don’t see a good reason to be going back this far to remove posts you believe violate this rule (using flawed logic).
Believe me if I can have a way to get rid of my older Post at a Go I will be very glad to do so. But less he forgets newbies are coming into the cryptocurrency system so I will be much likely to say that he or she handling the script should know what is going to happen is something goes wrong and good topic post are deleted.
Jump to: